panzermartin
-
Posts
2,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by panzermartin
-
-
Same here...I have tried from 1.01 to 1.05. Whenever I'm the guest I get the same non responding units. At the begginng all is smooth and well. As the battle progresses it seems like the packet losses (?) pile up and game becomes laggy and you have to wait for minutes for units to execute your orders.
Can somebody please tell us what is needed to play a smooth multiplayer scenario? I have 1MB DSL while my opponent had 4M or something. It cant be that bad.
-
If you could combine the current OPFOR weapons, T-62/72 BMPs etc, with the terrain of CMx2WW2 you nearly have a Cold war game. Some Leopards, M60s, M113s would be necessary though. Instead of the uninteresting Marines module a WW3 70s/80s (with mid east in mind too) add on would be worth the money. Going backwards in history seems to be more challenging tactically. A CMSF blue on Blue for instance is pure overkill..not interesting at all. He who sees first wins and really 6months after the release I still cant figure out how LOS works and who sees who. Go back to forgiving weaponry and
all glitches of the engine would be less noticeable.
-
I know how hard is to make a decent scenario, I have tried that myself. My last intention was to be hard on the precious scenario designers. Some of their work is downright brilliant. But the fact remains..a modern setting of this kind is more or less biased towards one side and what we get is one sided gameplay. Its inevitable anyway. You have one more mobile side attacking and the other obsolete and static side defending. Clearly its more interesting to attack against the AI, than defend. You can have some fantasy red on red or some syrians attacking under very strict and special conditions but this is where the setting fails. You just cant launch a quick and balanced fight like in a WW2 game. You have to wait for the scripted, very carefuly planned and balanced, asymmetrical scenario that might not be that balanced and interesting in the end anyway. The particular setting is why QBs are almost impossible to have a purchase system similar to the older CMs. Much harder to price an M1A2 vs various T72 versions compared to a sherman vs a PzIV. So, its hard for me to tell I'm fed up of WW2, whenOriginally posted by MarkEzra:90% US only? No way to get balanced play? Allow me to point out that there are some 40 balanced scen (2P by QBG) at www.CMMODS.com that any Red players (like me!) would take heart in. As for scen: Chance Encounter (already up) Last Defense and Riesberg (coming just in time for Christmas!) All offer a TOUGH Red opponent.
I really think you shouldn't be too hard on scen designers who naturally have been excited to work with the REALLY high tech equipment Blue force offers. As we all learn to use the new editor tools game balance will improve. The fact remains, However, Modern War is asymmetric and "Winning" or "losing" in game terms need serious re-evaluation by scenario designers and player alike. If you lose half a Stryker Company but Kill 70% of the Uncom force and destroy ALL their pick up trucks
are you actually a "Winner"? Is Holding a Victory point in a Modern setting actually as important as WW2? I think not. Casualties, morale, and civilian damage/casualties (my dream) should be a far more significant factor. And this is up to the scen designer to build and the players to embrace. It is the significant difference in WW2 Gaming and Modern. And for the record: WW2 is my favorite period and Modern next in line...Civil War/Napoleonic or Star Wars I choose not to play... Just less interest those periods.
you have an almost perfectly balanced set of opposing assets straight from the box. With this engine and some further fine tuning, CMx2WW2 will be miles ahead of CMSF in terms of gameplay imo.
PS. I was delighted when BFC announced the shift to the modern era. It was something that had to be done. It was cool to see those cult russian tanks in game, guided missiles, the Abrams etc. But ultimately gameplay and tactics is what matters the most. I'm now patiently waiting for its comeback with the WW2 release.
[ December 19, 2007, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Ali-Baba ]
-
How can you be sick of WW2? Have you played CMSF? You got sick of modern warfare really quickly. 90% of the scenarios are US only (woohooo!), its all about bringing down buildings with Tanks/Javelins/Arty/Airpower, armor battles last a second or two and you never know what really hit you. BFC has done a good job in simulating this, no doubt but although I needed a change from the classic WW2 themes myslef, I'm now desperate to fight again with shermans and panzers, where tactics
matter more than putting your godlike FO on the top of the highest building. Fighting with Syrians is much more interesting but unfortunately QBs are out of the question and since 90% of the people here are from US, we get the same building cleaning scenarios over and over again. And why the hell should I be interested in hunting down poor conscript syrians with high tech weaponry?
The only instance I can think of having a balanced modern fight is that of Arab-Israeli wars of 1973 for example. I always thought Vietnam is better for some great anti war movie but wargaming?? Now thats asymmetrical
Chess has been done to death too. You get to play with the same toys for ages now. But guess what? Its perfectly symmetrical. WW2 justs ticks all the boxes for a balanced and challegning TWO sided fight. You cant do that with any other historical setting without making the rules more asymmetrical and ultimately more complex. And making the rules more complex is just the start for a less enjoyable game.
-
Combat Mission: Only a module away from WW2
-
Well, while Eastern front is my favourite too, I think the CMSF scale indicates that the engine suits far better a Normandy game. Big fights arent that playable, and an eastern front game without hordes of T-34s and big maps wont be eastern front at all
The Normandy game with smaller unit actions, paras, hedgerows vigniettes, small picturesque (please please add some more character in built up areas!) french villages, plus a later Bastogne and Market garden module would be awesome. Just the perfect scale for CMx2 imo.
-
I love the patch but low wall LOS blocking is weird.
Low walls almost behave like a Tall wall, blocking infantry and even vehicle LOS.
-
Hopefully the 1.05 will make MOUT much more fun to play. Now, honestly it is a kind of masochistic torture. I dont blame BFC. 1:1 was a right choice but is simply impossible to program individual soldiers to respond intelligently to high tech
modern weaponry in such a complex environment. Auto-formation doesnt really work but unfortunately there is no possible user input here to counter this.
I really really really wish we could be able to specifically pack a squad behind a vehicle, set line formation along a wall, the way Company of Heroes does. Things would be so much easier for us. When you are in a building things are more or less easy but once you get out of the door..brrrr.
Its like letting a bunch of blind people walk across interstate 88 or something.
On rural setting there are problems too, mainly that Los/Lof through crest lines etc but the game is less of a headache. This is one of the reasons (plus all the up to that date improvements) that I think the WW2 game will be far superior in gameplay. Less Mout, less lethal weapons, more interesting rural setting = vastly more enjoyable game.
-
Pathfinding is not that bad imo. Actually CMx2 will be a great game the day infantry will be useful in some way (and TCP/ip working
) . Even the arcadish Company of Heroes has infantry behaviour that actually is instantly understood, its very flexible and it feels realistic while being very easy to use. Plus, when under fire it tries to seek cover, or spreads out when under mortar/arty fire. MOUT and weak infantry modelling dont bond well together. There are no formations, no intelligent use of cover, unresponsive AI, obscure Los/Lof etc. Its a disaster when you try to simulate MOUT, where in reality every man will seek cover behind the tiniest natural or artificial terrain feature, while in the game soldiers are helpless and very willing to be wasted in the middle of a syrian street. In an RTS you can afford to lose zillions of squads with no real worries. In CMSF 3-4 squads are all you have. Lose some due to misunderstanding of the complex interface and game mechanics and your patience runs out very quickly.
-
Steve must have a large family then
Sorry dude but your post is pathetic too. I don't like many things in the game but this is no excuse to post rude comments like the above. Games are more like music /movies etc. You cant insult a musician telling him that his music is only listened by his cat and its not a penny's worth. Especially when you have already listened to his samples before buying. Next time watch who is pissing in your corn flakes
-
Good luck with your witch hunting then. I haven't heard anything positive from Iraq or Afghanistan all those years. Saudi Arabia which supposedly is an ally seems to host more terrorist cells than countries US have invaded. Iran seems untouchable too. I dont know why people keep persuading themselves that the cumbersome military will make any difference in fighting something so asymmetrical, flexible and faceless as terrorism. Killing one more bearded caveman with an Ak-47 doesnt sound like a solution to the problem.
-
You make it sound like the boeings had the afghani flag stamped on them. You even invaded Iraq and later admitted that there was no solid link between 9/11 and Saddam. How can you compare this blurry case of terrorism with the extreme paradigm of WW2?
I would consider it a madness if my country would start a war with lets say Turkey because of a terrorist act planned by an Albanian guy living in Ankara and executed by a Mongolian taxi driver from Instanbul. Your enemy is so widespread and invisible that waging war on particular countries is just a waste of lives and resources.
-
Its not about morality it is about strategy. You need to win the locals and public opinion back home. It wont help you if TV broadcasts piles of children bodies killed by coalition bombs, don't you think?
I higly doubt that in Bush's agenda these people are considered better than garbage. In Vietnam you didnt have those morality issues I think. I guess you learnt your lesson this time. That of course doesnt make any difference because technicaly you are once again the invader. And the invader is always wrong in my book no matter how gentle or smart his bullets are.
-
Will we get to play them in 1.05 too?
-
I say good luck to the cavemen too. I dont know, since that Rambo movie I have a soft spot for them
-
That's all good but serious software companies have other priorities these days. Like bribing Gamespot for instance
-
Cowards? Nah..They are just being "gamey".
-
I dont think anybody insulted your grandmother's brother here, you really missed the point.
-
Sorry to sound a bit egocentric but I'm frustrated that CMSF's multiplayer is virtually non existent, while playing single player is from the start a scripted, uninteresting, unchallenging way of playing. Since 1.04 multiplayer is totally broken. Nobody even paid attention that the patch ruined even the basic TCP ip function of the game. Not that it was solid before..huge lags, floating infantry, 3 min delays of orders etc etc.
CM solo is just 1% of the fun you could have versus a human. CMSF could bypass all the AI weaknesses (most of them are humanly impossible to improve) with a proper multiplayer function, opponents finidning lobby etc. It is RealTime now, so a 2player game could not be that time consuming.
-
Who cares about the AI anymore. Proper wargames are designed for human vs human and this is where I'm expecting to see improvement. Putting effort on resurrecting a brain dead, scripted TacAi, which has absolutely zero situational awareness and no responsiveness to simulate a fluid modern battlefield is a total waste of time and resources. I dont really blame them for this though, it is nearly impossible to put an auto pilot to such a tactically complex 3d wargame.
Make CMSF a solid multiplayer platform with no bugs and lag problems, with time out points for TCP/IP RT and you'll have a winner.
-
Hmm, I'm giving the game a last chance with 1.05. If multiplayer is still problematic I will shelve it for good I'm afraid
-
Fair points but 5/10 with latest patch? If they mean 1.04 they are way off. Even gamespot gave it a 4.5 when practically CMSF was an unplayable beta.
Its a 7/10 for me. Despite some impressive simulation moments, game still seems rather short lived and limited and the TCP multiplayer part that I had hoped it will keep it alive is totally screwed right now.
-
Well the most serious and most awaited 1.05 fix for me is that for the completely broken multiplayer.
It is my major letdown from the start but sadly very few people played and therefore complained about it.It was never really playable but now its not even an option with connection problems, and crashes. It was about time they looked into it. Hopefully the horrible lags and bugs will go away with 1.05.
How can a 2007 game can survive without a proper multiplayer function. Dont you people get tired of the scripted single player missions?
-
Good to see you are working on it. I can confirm those bugs too and I havent even tested 1.04 TCP yet. The unresponsive units, floating passengers and horrible lag were there from the start.
are you actually a "Winner"? Is Holding a Victory point in a Modern setting actually as important as WW2? I think not. Casualties, morale, and civilian damage/casualties (my dream) should be a far more significant factor. And this is up to the scen designer to build and the players to embrace. It is the significant difference in WW2 Gaming and Modern. 
1.05 Multi-Player Report
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I have lag issues too like most players I have played against. Actually only scenarios with a couple of inf are working (like Al-Huqf). I dont have router and setting the firewall on or off doesnt make any difference. Since it lets you connect it shouldnt be a firewall issue anyway.
Have big scenarios been playtested via TCP/ip? Another thing is that you have no clue what is the ping between you and the host. Makes things more obscure.